45

CONFLICT RESOLUTION STYLE AMONG STAFF OF LEGAL OFFICES IN DAVAO CITY

CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Conflict within the organization is certainly not a new phenomenon and

it is widely acknowledged that disputes within the organization can give

negative results in different ways (Schieberl, 2010). In fact, much of what a

lawyer does, the staffs do. Resolution of disputes, using a standardized set of

rules, is a skill in the legal practice (Raasch, 2014). Hence, knowing legal

staffs conflict resolution styles will help the law firms Human Resource (HR)

managers handle disputes among them (Hayes, 2015).

According to Sandra Boyer, a lawyer from the United States, conflict

can be very disruptive and unproductive. Conflict may be healthy, but

unmanaged conflict can be chaotic. Members of the law firms who have

different opinions need to understand their differences for them to produce

new ideas and achieve new outcomes and if members work together for these

goals, collaboration progresses and creates new opportunity for growth and

success (Boyer, 2011)

Martines (2014) stated that legal staff manifests aggressive behaviors

and shows defense mechanism, which are influenced by the law practice

environment. Additionally, she mentioned that different conflict resolution

styles that are developed and used here in the Philippines can be reflective of
 46

certain factors surrounds the staff themselves and the professional culture

itself.

According to Kim (2012), one of the programs that Asian Foundation

which has been implemented in the southern part of the Philippines is Legal

Reform and Conflict Management, where they constantly uphold legal

education, mediation, and awareness of styles of dispute resolution to

address conflicts in an organization for both inside and outside the legal

system. Hence, they formalize the Alternative Dispute Resolution by

partnering with the Conflict Resolution Group (CoRe) and obtain an Executive

Order from the president and trained legal practitioners around Mindanao

region.

Conflict Resolution Style (CRS) is one of individuals leadership

characteristics that will help the organizations effectiveness in achieving its

goal (Boucher, 2013). Reio and Trudel (2013) cited that it is necessary for

organizations to give workers training in conflict resolution so that organization

can also benefit. In fact, study shows that some of the employees are not still

prepared in handling conflict in the workplace.

Moreover, this study would discover the importance of knowing their

conflict resolution styles by looking into the significant difference on the

demographic profile of staff in legal offices in Davao City.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study aimed to determine the significant relationship among the

conflict resolution styles of staff in legal offices in Davao City.

 47

Specifically, this study is intended to answer the following questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of staff in legal offices in Davao City in

terms of:

1.1. Sex

1.2. Age

1.3. Educational Background

1.4. Civil Status; and

1.5. Length of Service?

2. What is the level of conflict resolution styles of respondents in terms

of:

2.1. Avoidance

2.2. Collaboration

2.3. Competitiveness

2.4. Compromise; and

2.5. Accommodation?

3. Is there a significant difference of conflict resolution styles among

the staff of legal offices in Davao City when grouped according to

their demographic profile?

HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY

Ho. There is no significant difference on conflict resolution styles of the

respondents when grouped according to sex, age, educational background,

and status.
 48

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This section presents the prominent points from various literatures and

studies which are relevant to this study. This further explain points,

observations and fact cited by experts regarding the study specifically conflict

resolution style of legal staff, results and factors affecting resolution styles. In

order to gather the related literature, the researcher examined journals,

periodicals, unpublished theses, book, and online articles, among others.

Conflict

Conflict is understood differently by various people and so there is a

long list of definitions of conflicts. As cited by Lather, Jain a& Shukla (2010),

Oxford Online Dictionary defines the word conflict as a serious situation in

which a group of people is/are involved in an argument or disagreement.

Moreover, there is a lot of scholars viewed conflict in different perspective

such as process, event or an interaction. Bennagen and Ye (2016) said that

conflict is a common issue in humans daily life, this are coming from

collective disagreements between interactions, goals, opinions and process

within educational entities. These arguments would lead to positive or

negative results because of peoples unsolicited ideals, aspirations and

unhealthy personal selfish intentions.

Conflict has become inseparable part of an individuals life, we

experience conflict along with joy and sorrow. As mentioned by Lather, Jain

and Shukla (2010) it has been a natural phenomenon to ones personal and
 49

professional existence and uncontrollable part of human activity which may be

perceived as two or more individual or groups to be incompatible.

Conflict occurs when two or more individual disagree with a belief or

opinion, and a resolution is needed to move forward (Bright, 2012). Conflict is

managed when it no longer interferes with the ongoing activities of parties

involved. It is the process of removing cognitive barriers to agreement

(Bennagen & Ye, 2016). Moreover, Huan and Yazdanifard (2012) said that

people think of conflict in basic terms, it only happen when serious issues and

anger is invoked in the whole communication process, it causes

misinterpretation of ones words and point of views.

Conflict is part on individuals daily life. Conflict may refer to any states

where in individual have mismatched principles, feelings, experience, and

interest towards another person (Baumgardner, 2012).

Actually, Bennegen and Ye (2016) mentioned that conflict emerge

within a person, in selecting a career and in making important life decisions;

between individual due to individuals uniqueness, within a group due to

misconception with members and groups due to group competitiveness.

There are two different types of conflict stated by Huan and

Yazdanifard (2012), one of it is task conflict and focuses on the ways on how

to resolve it. The other type of conflict is called the relationship conflict and

focuses on blaming others rather than finding ways to resolve it (ibid).

Maitlo, et.al. (2012) categorized the styles of settling interpersonal

conflict based on two facades, first is when a person always consider himself

and his own concerns and the second is when a person consider others and
 50

concerns of others. The dimension of people is a variety in nature, therefore

the consideration of ones interest to own self and of others.

As cited by Schieberl (2010) in his study of sources of interpersonal

conflicts in the workplace, 62 percent of the main issues came from conflicts

between subordinates and supervisors such as refusal of employees

proposal, unclear job descriptions, performance evaluations, schedules and

workloads. Furthermore 61 percent of the primary issues regarding conflict

between co-workers relate to personalities, allocation of assignments, and

work ethics.

According to Luke (2014), with the different types of conflict arising

from different circumstances, the call for making an effective and efficient

management style with full courage and risk-taking are very important. By

preparing the people that will engage to conflict the negative effects produced

by conflict will be navigated to positive if conflict will be handled properly

(ibid.).

Along with this, Azurin (2013) also believed that conflicts do not all the

time appear to be an obstacle, by monitoring the effective and efficient

management strategies, there will be extensive principles, stronger

relationships, and broaden understanding.

It is a fact that working in an organization means to be involved in a

conflict, as different people works together having different personalities and

perspective in life. Thus, they cant avoid conflict in the organization.

According to Ahamefula (2014), the easiest way to avoid conflict is to remove

the interaction or leave the relationship with the other party. However,

Ahamefula (2014) believed that it is not possible to every conflict therefore

 51

managers should learn to address and manage the conflict in the

organization.

Additionally, it is also argued by Ahamefula (2014) the sources of

workforce conflict. He traces two sources of conflict. First, he says it comes

from individual tensions due to differences working differently for the same

goal and second is the division of labor because most of the organizations

assigns an individual to a specific job and in a specific section and it will lead

to poor unity and will result to some conflicts.

As mentioned by Zhu (2013) there are different reason that contribute

for the conflict to arise. First view was if the competition for resources,

coordination of systems, work distribution, and participation in decision

making as number one reasons to have conflict in the organization. Morever,

Zhu (2013) affirmed the idea of Ahamefula (2014) that the emerging conflict

between departments within the organization are causes to the increase

disagreements resulted from the interdependence between departments and

short-term objectives and the aspiration to be an autonomous.

According to Violetta (2012), there are five stages of the conflict

process. The first stage is Potential Opposition or Incompatibility which

includes reasons for conflict to arise and have categorized three causes or

source of conflict, the communications, structure and the personal variables.

The second stage is Cognition and Personalization wherein in this stage

conflict concerns should be known and parties should decide what the conflict

is about. The third stage is the Intentions it is the intervention of third party to

the conflicting persons and intervenes to the parties perception, emotion and

behaviour this stage tackles more of the theory of Thomas-Killman (1974).

 52

The fourth stage is Behaviour wherein this stage conflict is more perceptible

thus parties are more focused to this stage since implementation is hereby

necessary. The last stage is Outcomes which means conflicting parties faces

the consequences of the conflict. There are two kinds of outcomes: functional

and dysfunctional where functional results to improvements and dysfunctional

usually lessen group performances.

Moreover, Violetta (2012) used Yahoo! as an example of an

organization that stressed out due to lack of functional conflict. The company

had become the most known internet brand in 1999 however, the companys

stock was down to 92 percent from its peak last 2001 the problem where the

organization cannot adapt and innovate since managers and staffs settled in

maintaining the status quo since the CEO had a policy of a conflict-free time

but the organization changed strategy and since then they gradually solved

the problem.

According to Whetthen & Cameron (2012) said that the source of

conflict among employees can be different in terms of age, cultural

background, ethics, and values. Like for example, a long term employee who

feels loyal which can have conflict to a newcomer who sees the organization

as a stepping stone to future career.

 53

Conflict Resolution Style

Graham (2010) cited that can be summarized into three general

categories: communication issues, structure problems, and personal

behaviour factors and by understanding this conflicts, he believed that people

can be able to successfully intervene and fight conflict by classifying conflict it

can be easy to know what would conflict resolution style they will use and

their roles in the conflict resolution process.

According to a study conducted by Reio and Trudel (2013), gender,

age and educational level had no significant relationships with any of the five

conflict resolution styles among college leaders. Additionally, data shows that

as the work experience increased, collaborating, competing and avoiding

conflict resolution styles have also been frequently used.

Motivation of employees produces productivity, effectiveness, and

efficiency. Barbuto and Xu (2010) studied the relationship of source of

motivation and conflict resolution styles. Data was collected from leaders that

worked in different organizations in the United States. Study shows that

competing, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating conflict resolution

styles were related to more than one of the motivation sources. Only

collaborating style has no significant relationship with the conflict resolution

style of leaders.

Myatt (2012) pointed at five keys in dealing with workforce conflict. It

was reiterated that although having a conflict resolution style is important,

effective utilization of conflict resolution processes is ultimately dependent

upon the ability of all parties to understand the benefit of conflict resolution

and perhaps more importantly, their desire to resolve the matter. He pointed
 54

those tips that may help in effectively handling conflicts in the workplace:

Define Acceptable Behaviour, Hit Conflict Head-on, Understanding the WIIFM

(Whats In It for Me) Factor, The Importance Factor, and View Conflict as

Opportunity.

Based on Robinson (2010), to have an effective organization they

should know how to resolve conflict by using the three steps to navigate with

challenging interaction in senior team. First, develop ground rules for

constructive commitment to help people how to engage each other in an

organization follow and enforce those rules. It is given that human should

have set of rules to govern and control their behaviour (ibid). Second, select a

facilitator because it is needed to have one in case the organizations

environment becomes not efficient or aggressive. Moreover, help outside from

the organization will needed rarely, but if the organization can develop internal

mediation issues can be resolve effectively. Research discovered that when

the organization adopt a conflict resolution style that focusing on satisfying

needs of parties involve in conflict situation, employees tend to build a

relationship based on trust and respect (Robinsons, 2010; Schwarz, 2002).

In an article in the Harvard Business Review by Carver and Vondra

(2010), they studied the application of conflict resolution style to internal

conflicts to organization (Schieberl, 2010). It was highlighted that during

1980s the experts know they conflict resolution style and shows effectively

and efficiently way to reduce court litigations and demolish winners and losers

(Schieberl, 2010).

As cited by Schieberl (2010), a panel of 71 of staff in law firms and

lawyers who were at an Institute for Dispute Resolution meeting released a

 55

report that the need of using conflict resolution style to business organizations

is essential in resolving intra-organizational disputes.

About the question if they deal with conflict in the workplace, 29

percent said that they face conflict always or frequently and only around 14

percent said that they dont deal with disputes. When they were asked what

triggers the conflict in workplace research founds that almost half of all the

employees around 49 percent is personality issues and second where about

34 percent said that conflict is caused by stress while 33% pointed pressure

as a factor for dispute (Hayes, 2015).

Preschel (2013) suggested some tips to manage usage of conflict

resolution styles to protect relationship amongst other of the staffs. It was said

that dwelling with the past issues should not be done to create greater ability

to resolve the conflict, know if the case youre trying to win for is worth your

time and effort and lastly know when to let the argument be ignored.

According to Hitt, et.al (2014), a conflict resolution style may be

effective if handled correctly. Additionally, they mentioned that there is several

ways in handling conflicts. It can be by the individual themselves, or a third

party such as an adjudicator. In conflict resolution, they should follow the

steps to be effective, create diagnosis if it is functional to resolve the case and

what resolution methods should be applied, what conflict resolution style is

suitable of a specific argument, how to efficiently implement conflict resolution

style and lastly assess if the conflict resolution style is effectively resolve the

issue.
 56

Huan and Yazdanifard (2012) points several conflict management

styles such as passive aggressive style, forcing style, avoiding style,

accommodating style, compromising style, and collaborating style.

Conflict resolution can lead to desired organizational outcomes such as

fairness, satisfaction, and effectiveness (Abas, 2010). As cited by the

aforesaid author, Gross and Guerro (2010) rated the accommodating style as

the most effective while the avoiding style is the least effective. The

competitive style inflames conflicts in organization, while accommodating and

collaborating lessen conflict and are prove to be effective.

According to Huan and Yazdanifard (2012), managers, supervisors and

employees, and leaders should use different type of conflict management

style when engaging different types of people. If an individual only use one

conflict management style in handling all conflict it may not work as it was

expected to be.

Another conflict resolution style was discussed to a study cited by

Graham (2010), that there were several conflicrt resolution style philosophies

and can be grouped to three different categories: traditionalist, behavioralist

and interactionist. The style behind traditionalist is to get free or resolve the

conflict; the next style is the behavioralist which is very similar to traditionalist

philosophy the only contrary is that behavioralist do not always look-after the

conflict that will eventually damage the organization; and lastly and the most

historically used was the interactionist which perceived that when using this

philosophy, people tends to always continue to resolve the conflict that hinder

the organization to perform effectively and efficiently, by this there will be a

visible growth and innovation to the organization (ibid). Additionally, Graham

 57

(2010) said that ideas need to be challenged if the organization wants to see

a quality improvement and believed that adaption is possible only through

change, and stimulated by conflict.

Abas (2010) tested the significant relationship of supervisors and

employees conflict resolution style of the XYZ University employees. Results

show that collaborating and compromising resolution style was the most used

style of subordinates in facing conflicts with their supervisors while the

competitive style was the least used by the subordinates.

Bennagen and Ye (2016) also conducted a study exploring the

demographical profile of deans of two universities from different countries if it

is significantly related. The result shows that the nationality of the deans from

Assumption University in Thailand significantly influences their conflict

resolution styles. And the demographic profiles of both universities do not

significantly influence the styles of deans from both universities. Both the Thai

and Filipino administrators and managers do advocate a harmonious

relationship in the workplace.

According to Berman (2013), conflict can be avoided if a series of steps

will be followed in handling discussion to lessen anger and build

communication. He presented some essential ways to renounce disputes in

early stages, before getting worst. Remain calm; it helps to look at the big

picture. Since conflict inevitably happens, it is going to be resolved eventually

(Berman, 2013).

The awareness of level of conflict in different organizations plays a vital

role in understanding conflict resolution style (Abas, 2010; Rahim, 1986). By

knowing or assessing the conflict resolution style can help in improving law
 58

firms productivity. Furthermore, by assessing the conflict resolution styles of

employees in the workplace, it can help HR managers in the legal offices to

resolve disputes.

According to a study conducted by Gupta, et.al, (2011), managers use

more than one style even if those styles are not appropriate for the issues,

and that they react to a certain dispute based on how they feel and not what

they think they should.

By understanding the types of conflict resolution styles then individual

can use the appropriate conflict resolution style to use in a specific conflict.

Additionally, Huan and Yazdanifard (2012) said that if conflict is left

unresolved it may cause unexpected consequences.

Thomas and Killmans (1974) conflict resolution model was selected as

the major theoretical framework of this research study. The five conflict

resolutions styles are competing, collaborating, competing, avoiding, and

accommodating. Definitions of the following styles are discussed below.

Competitive Style

According to Corn (2013) the opposite of collaboration in that in

engenders the common win or lose scenario that follows from a high degree

of concern for self and a low degree of trust in the other party.

Raasch (2014) said that, lawyers who are involved with a workplace

conflict with the staffs resolution has to do with getting the other person or

entity to change a scenario where there will be a winner and another party a

loser. Toku (2014) argued that in conflicts where quick decision should be

made and people involved are unskilled with conflict resolution, manager can
 59

adapt this strategy. However, subordinates who are skilled may see their

managers very oppressive. Moreover, it was stressed-out that this strategy is

best used when the conflict is not so complex.

The competing styles produces a positive and negative result,

according to Waithaka (2014) as the parties involved are aggressive and only

want to ensure that their needs are met which commonly used by parties that

are not interested in preserving the relationship. The goal of a dominant party

in the disagreement is to win at any costs regardless of the damage that will

be caused to the other party in the negotiation process.

Competitive is a power-oriented style. This resolution style is pursuing

his or her side regardless if its on the other persons expense in whatever

forms for him or her to win his or her stand (Trainer, 2010). This style will

surely create a winner and a loser, and it will bring advantages and

disadvantages to the firm. The loser may become an unproductive employee

and will gain hatred that will result in bad work ethics (Boyer, 2011). Thus, the

HR manager of a legal office should commit in giving a positive community for

lawyers and staff inside the organization.

Competitive people are having most likely high regard for himself and

low regard for the other (Reio and Trudel, 2013). Most of the times, vigorous

attitudes are used just to win the argument (Reio and Trudel, 2013).

Moreover, competitive individual ignores the feelings of the other side, seems

want to succeed at any cost, and is willing to use power and authority to

satisfy his or her dominance (Taormina, 2014).

Additionally, Wang (2015) said that dominating or competitiveness

goes all out to win his or her objective and as a result he or she ignores the
 60

needs and expectation of the other party. Competitiveness may mean

standing up for ones right and defending a position that the party believes to

be correct. For example, dominating staffs is likely to use his or her position

and power to impose his or her will on the subordinates and command their

obedience.

Caonera (2013) mentioned that people who use this conflict resolution

style take a firm stand, and know what they want. They usually operate from a

position of power, drawn from things like rank, expertise or the authoritative

ability. Competing might mean standing up for your rights, defending a

position which you believe is correct, or simply trying to win (Thomas &

Killmann, 1970). Moreover, this style can be very useful when there is an

emergency and decision needs to make fats; when the decision is unpopular;

or when defending against someone who is trying to exploit the situation

selfishly. However it can leave people feeling hurt, unsatisfied and resentful

when used in less urgent circumstances (Caonera, 2013).

Ahamefula (2014) sees competitiveness as a destructive conflict

resolution style this is because it is a definitive win-lose result that leaves the

loser unsatisfied with the result and emphasize the competitive attitude of the

winner and furthermore, this resolution style most shows a dualistic

perspective.

According to Coburn (2013), use competitiveness as a conflict

resolution style when you need to act or get results quickly. However, he

mentioned that competition is critical when you are aware that something is

not negotiable and immediate compliance is necessary. Coburn (2013)

 61

recommended that you use a blended approach through, as both negotiation

parties locking horns in a competitive battle can result in a spiralling deadlock.

Chu (2011) stated that when competing to an individual one pursues

his or her own concerns at the other persons expense, using whatever

authority seems applicable to win his or her position the ability to argue.

Ferreres (2014) agrees that competitive style is preferred to ones own

concern at the expense of the other party. Robbins (2015) defines competitive

as an aspiration to satisfy individuals significance regardless of the negative

impact to other party.

According to Bright (2012) this kind of conflict resolution works if an

authority will be established between parties to fulfil the short- or long-term

goals of the company. However, there is a high potential that the losing party

may hold feelings of resentment that can lead to another conflict because the

personal side in the competitive environment can effect relationships (ibid).

According to Maitlo, et.al. (2012) there is a high possibility that using

competitiveness as conflict resolution style can only addressed one problem

and will result to incomplete and ineffective solution to the problem. Moreover,

people who use this conflict resolution style think that hearing there concern

will partially resolve the conflict.

Hayes (2015) held that using this style will initially give you satisfaction

but will surely affect the long-term relationship and if overly used, may create

a very competitive environment to all co-workers that may cause damage to

the business.

Bakhare (2010) said that situations when this style would be

appropriate would be when a quick decision or action is needed, when the

 62

decision needing to be made is unpopular, when essential issues need to be

addressed, or when protection of ones self interests is needed. Moreover

Orlan and Svetnicka (2013) mentioned that competition type skills would

include arguing or debating, using rank or influence, asserting your opinions

and feelings, standing your ground, and stating your position clearly.

According to Maitlo, et.al. (2012) there is a high possibility that using

competitiveness as conflict resolution style can only addressed one problem

and will result to incomplete and ineffective solution to the problem. Moreover,

people who use this conflict resolution style think that hearing there concern

will partially resolve the conflict.

As discussed by Yasin & Khalid (2015), when issues that tends to

trigger conflict and becomes more important or set a pattern this conflict

resolution style is generally used. However, since one of the party is being

dominant this conflict resolution style can intensify the conflict and loser may

try to react and will also use this strategy (ibid.).

Akintayo (2016) revealed that both male and female staffs should not

use and avoid this conflict resolution style in managing an industrial dispute

but rather, collaboration conflict resolution style should be used in the

negotiation process in order to have an effective and efficient conflict

management in any organization. Mehrad, et.al (2014) says that competing

conflict resolution style is an impressing factor for accepting one situation be it

winning or losing without any reason or discussion.

Chaudhry, et.,al (2011) said that competiting as a conflict management

style tries to satisfy ones own needs at the expense of the needs to the other
 63

party and usually this is achieved by the means of formal authority physical

threats, or by ignoring the grudge of the other party.

Pourghaz, et.al. (2014) found out that competitive style and has no

significant relationship with occupational personality similar to a study

mentioned that there was no significant relationship with job satisfaction and

competitive style and reveals that the use of competitiveness as conflict

resolution style slows down the process of goal achievement.

Collaborating Style

Caonera (2013) said that, this conflict resolution style as the

extent that there is a climate of openness and trust which promotes

collaboration, cooperation, support and involvement in functioning the

organization. Moreover, he said that when collaborating as an organization,

staffs is working together dealing with the concerns of all members also,

they were able to consider the full range of alternatives and differences;

becomes more clearly focused and resolved problems more satisfying thus, it

results to beneficial to both parties.

Corn (2013) said that collaboration is the most valued technique in

conflict management since this is the only strategy that both party can win but

it requires a lot of trust in the other party. Furthermore, collaboration is the

best conflict resolution style as said by Ahamefula (2014) this is because it

delivers win-win outcomes since it uses integrative behaviours and help to

satisfy both parties and agreements to solve the issue and this conflict

resolution style is a non-dualistic behaviour since it requires both parties to

think best results for them rather than just thinking of own interest.
 64

According to Wang (2015) this conflict resolution style involves

exchange of information and examination of differences to reach a solution

acceptable to both parties in substantive conflict negotiation. Wang (2015)

stated that this strategy has two unique foundations: confrontation and

problem solving meaning confrontation involves open communication,

removing the misunderstanding this is important since confrontation is a

requisite to problem solving.

Moreover, Ahamefula (2014) stress out on the negative effects of

having a third party to manage the conflict to have a more collaborative result.

First, the chance of resolving the issues and having used its skills are not

given to the staffs who is the first-hand person experiencing the conflict that

means to some point the root of the issue may not be satisfy and only the

treats of it. Second, as there are issues and disagreements that they cannot

resolve by themselves their approach may be limited.

The collaboration style is contrary from avoiding style. It means two

parties are being considered. Hence, a collective style of problem-solving can

reach acceptable solutions. This style of conflict resolution allows parties to

downplay difference (Boyer, 2011). With collaboration, assurance is

guaranteed through a harmonious result and unpleasant feelings are avoided

(Bennagen & Ye, 2016).

Orlan & Svetnicka (2013) says that collaboration uses many ideas from

multiple people leading not only to the best solution, but a better solution than

would have been created by just a single person. Because collaboration

produces such positive results some people believe it should always be the

conflict resolution style to use. Besides Bakhare (2010) mentioned that

 65

collaboration would be suitable for times when issues are too significant to

compromise, when different perspectives are combined, when increasing

commitment and developing relationships, when learning, and when the

conflict is important to those who are building an assimilated solution.

As mentioned by Maitlo, et.al. (2012) supports the argument of

collaborating in such a way that well-judged, effective and efficient outcome of

any dispute would only be by the means of careful and effortful examination of

the aims and well-being of all the persons involved. Research shows that

there is high possibilities of attaining peace when they are both have high

concern for self and a high concern for others (ibid).

According to Moorhead and Griffin (2015), parties to conflict resolution

may partially have difficult working out the ways in which all can achieve their

goals. However, since the relationship is vital to goal attainment parties may

be willing to meet halfway. A situation in which the parties to a conflict each

desire to satisfy fully the concern of all parties (Robbins, 2015). Toku (2014)

added that the use of this style invoved important variables such as,

openness and information exchange, obtaining alternatives and the

examination of differences to reach an effective solution which was

acceptable to both parties. Hence, both parties are expected to be open to

exchanging ideas.

Under most circumstances, Coburn (2013) said that collaborating as a

conflict resolution style is best used when a person use most goals in the

organization to organization negotiation. As mentioned in the competitive

section of this chapter, if a relationship and the organizations market

reputation is important then the person is best advised to think about all ways
 66

in which they can build a more trusting collaborative working relationship.

Moreover, the risk of using this type of conflict resolution style is when

collaborating with a party which is using competitive as a conflict resolution

style, unless they agree and settle with the agreement rules for collaboration,

however, die hard competitive negotiators can be treated in transactional

trading manner (Coburn, 2013).

Collaboration as a conflict resolution style requires more time and

needs to be at the right level Coburn (2013) said, he mentioned also that if the

both parties doesnt have authority or knowledge or wont invest time, then

save effort in negotiating.

With agreement to Coburn (2013) statement, Yasin and Khalid (2015)

also believe that this conflict resolution style focuses on problem solving and a

try to reach the desired outcome for both parties and use this style complying

with their preference and their preference by the relationship of factors like

age, gender, designation, and work experience.

The collaborating style represents a combination of assertiveness and

cooperativeness. It involves an attempt to satisfy the concerns of both sides

through honest discussion. For this style to be successful, trust and openness

are required among all participants (Bennagen & Ye, 2016). Also, Toku (2014)

mentioned that some researchers that collaborating as a conflict management

strategy will be more appropriate when it came to dealing with social conflicts

and issues which were strategic in nature also produce good result when

collaborating style is used.

Collaboration works best with long-term solutions (Bright, 2012). It is

further believed that one of the disadvantages of this style is that it can be
 67

time consuming because everyone must depart happy. Also, both parties are

interested in moving forward in achieving same goal with collaboration to

work.

Like all team leaders, collaboration believes in trust and communication

for a team to work and without rooting to this fact, collaboration will be very

difficult (Hayes, 2015).

When collaborating Akintayo (2012) said that is uses in persuasion,

lobbying, effective communication style, and sometimes relational which

definitely foster sustainable industrial peace and harmony since participatory

approach to manage of conflict is subsumed in collective bargaining process.

Additionally, it was promoted to use this conflict resolution style for male and

female rather than using competitiveness as conflict management style since

collaborating as a conflict resolution style is one of the most effective and

efficient strategy.

Chaudhry, et.al (2011) exposed that this conflict resolution style is the

key to enhance the performance of cultural differences of various team or

groups support system and collaborating among co-workers will be improved

when using this conflict resolution style since it increases the level of

agreement to negotiation, the quality and satisfaction of the decision.

Additionally, Chaudhry, et.al (2011) sees that collaboration strategy to be

positively enhance organization cohesiveness and organization effectiveness

when dealing with tasks conflicts.

Accommodating Style

A person who uses accommodating as a conflict resolution style is the

person who gives in to maintain the deception of having a harmonious

 68

relationship. As quoted by Ahamefula (2014) it seems to be that

accommodation as a destructive strategy because it often leads to a build-up

of negative feelings and also bitterness can be developed for the person using

the strategy and blame for the victor.

According to Trainer (2010), in accommodating, an individual

disregards his or her concern to give the other person satisfaction. Basically,

its the opposite of competing. This might give an impression that an

accommodating person has a selfless generosity in giving way to other party

even if you prefer not to yield to others point of view.

This style is very useful according to Wang (2015) when a party

believes that he or she may be incorrect or the concern is much more

important to the other party. It is also said that it is useful when a party is

willing to give up thinking that he or she may get something from the other

party in the near future an example of self-sacrificing, generous and obedient

strategy. It was also discussed in the study of Corn (2013) that this conflict

resolution style requires a different level of cooperation. This technique may

need ones personal need just to end the conflict. Furthermore, this style is

most applicable when one party give something of value to the other party in

exchange of something in future when he/she needs helps says Toku (2014).

This style usually used when the issue in conflict is valued to the other party

and the party wants also to protect the relationship.

Orlan and Svetnicka (2013) held that situations indicating use of this

style would be appropriate when it is desired to show fairness, improve

performance, develop community and fellowship, and to maintain

peacefulness. This style could be used when an issue or result is of little

 69

concern to someone. However Bakhare (2010) argued that accommodation

can cause problems if the person keeps track of all the times he or she

accommodates, especially when it is not reciprocated. Skills used to

accommodate are forgetting your desires, selflessness, ability to yield, and

obeying orders.

This style is one of the most effective resolution styles. Participants are

willing to accept the fact that others have meritorious positions, and then

attempt to understand their thinking and respect the differences (Boyer, 2011).

Moreover, this is supported by Maitlo, et.al (2012) saying that this conflict

resolution style seems an unproblematic way to patch up disagreements but

not an always entire efficient option.

Caonera (2013) said that this conflict resolution style give in to others,

but can be persuaded to surrender an opposition even when it is not

warranted. Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity or

charity, obeying another persons order when one would prefer not to, or

yielding to anothers point of view, it is appropriate when the issue matter

more to the other party, when peace is more valuable than winning or when

one want to be in position to collect on this favour gave. However, people may

not return favors and overall this approach unlikely to give the best results

(Caonera, 2013).

To a research cited by Maitlo, et.al (2012), it was concluded that

respondents who are hesitant to stand up for their own concern and which

only looking after the others interest tending to admit quickly that they failed

to see the opportunities for shared benefits.

 70

The advantage to this conflict resolution style is that conflict can be

immediately be resolved, which helps the short-term goals (Bright, 2012).

However, it was noted by same author that accommodation can result in the

accommodating partys less of self-esteem.

According to Hayes (2015), the person that is using this approach is

simply investing relationship with his or her co-worker; this approach is best

used in customer-related or team-based business where you are building

networks for the future.

Coburn (2013) said that this conflict resolution style is best used when

you or your company are at fault, repairing the relationship is critical, and if

you have nothing else that would benefit the other party. It is worth giving up

most especially when you both stand to lose if one of you put out of context.

Moreover, Coburn (2013) said that it is dangerous when you accommodate

the negotiations with persons using competitive conflict resolution style.

Therefore, the faulty thinking that puts accommodate into negotiation damage

control is thinking that because the goal is unimportant to one person, it must

have little value to the other party (ibid.).

Accommodation is a style that is used often in the sharing differences

that may exist among parties involved in a conflict. Conferring to Waithaka

(2014) this conflict resolution style is best used when different parties consider

the perspective and need of each other since one party ignores its personal

desire just to fulfil the desire of the other party.

As a support to the statement of Coburn (2013), Yasin and Khalid

(2015) cited that this style is preferred when the concern being argued is

much important over the other party since people who use this conflict
 71

resolution style have passive behaviour believing the goal of this strategy

which is I lose you win.

To the study of Akintayo (2012) it was based on the findings of the

research and was recommended that accommodating style should be

promoted as a conflict resolution style in order to guarantee effective

management of industrial dispute and sustainable peace, love and harmony

be manifested. Mehrad, et.al (2014) have been explained that

accommodation style illustrates part of problems and emphasizes on public

satisfaction among managers.

Chaudhry, et.al (2011) mentioned a study that says the use of

accommodating as a conflict resolution style can change according to the

status of the staff and accommodating is frequently used when the conflicting

party has a higher or senior-in-rank status. Moreover Chaudhry, et.al (2011)

regards the obliging/accommodating conflict resolution style may enhance

harmony and social desirability, but diminish the potential of creativity and

innovation and implies the flexibility, adaptability and willingness to solve

problems and essential for successful conflict management in this

collectivistic society.

There is a view that presented by Waithaka (2014) saying individuals

tend to respond to conflicting situations based on their personality or other

individual factors since in this view, it is conferred that individual order their

responses to conflict in a hierarchical manner such that their most

accommodating people approach they would likely use in reaction to a

conflict. It is also assumed that accommodating style is preferred conflict

 72

resolution style since individual is taught or trained to use this conflict

resolution style when they encounter a conflict or disagreement.

Pourghaz, et.al (2014) revealed that there is no significant relationship

between the accommodating style and occupational personality similar to a

study found that the accommodating style increases job satisfaction.

Avoiding Style

Caonera (2013) opined that team members react to conflict by

physical or psychological withdrawing or suppressing since they simply do not

address the conflict and are indifferent to each others needs and concerns.

They escape the argument, withdraw from the negotiation process or may not

even look for resolution. Thus, the people who are using this conflict

resolution style tends to employ seeks to escape the whole conflict resolution

process. It is done by allotting controversial issues, accepts defaulting the

discussions and do not want to hurt anyones moods (ibid.).

This is a style that according to Waithaka (2014) individual parties that

use this style do not confront one another to try and come up with a resolution

to the conflict. Sometimes parties care for each others perspective in using

this conflict resolution style or just ignoring it. Moreover Waithaka (2014)

believed that this is not an appropriate style for a workplace dispute as it does

not deal with the core of the conflict believing that avoiding the conflict means

it will be vanished one way or another.

Avoiding involves a low concern for self and others. According to Wang

(2015) an avoidant person always fails to satisfy his or her personal interests

as well as the other party. This strategy is helpful when there is a potential
 73

negative effect when one party confronts the other. Moreover, this strategy is

mostly illustrated as unconcerned behaviour toward the other party involve in

the argument. Thus, this person refuses to acknowledge especially in public

that there is an existing conflict (ibid.).

As mentioned by Ahamefula (2014), avoidance is a strategy usually

adopts by people with a poor history of dealing with conflict and this is also a

destructive conflict resolution style because using it means conflicts never get

resolved. Furthermore, both parties often turns to fighting in order to get a

response. An example was illustrated by Toku (2014), a manager who uses

avoidance as a conflict management strategy always fail to meet his needs

and that of others too thinking that a party is not worth confronting the other

party. Thus this strategy requires patience on the part of both parties.

Also, Bakhare (2010) believed that avoidance may be appropriate in

times when the issue is not of high importance; tensions need to be reduced,

if someone is in a position of lower power, or if more time will be gained with

avoidance. Supported by Orlan and Svetnicka (2013) that skills found in

avoidance are the ability to withdraw, ability to sidestep issues, ability to leave

things unresolved, and a sense of timing.

The conflict resolution through conflict avoidance can be very

unfavourable to a legal office. This style makes person concerned to avoid the

person and circumstance that creates conflict (Boyer, 2011). Under this

conflict style, may be postponed or ignored (Bennagen & Ye, 2016). In some

circumstances, to avoid conflict is diplomatic, especially, when issues and

concerns are imperative.

 74

In avoiding, an individual does not immediately pursue his case or the

other party. They do not address the conflict. Avoiding might take the form of

diplomacy in resolving issue, sometimes suspended to find a better time to

discuss on issue (Chu, 2011). Moreover, Yasin and Khalid (2015) added that

this conflict management style can be passive since a person tends to avoid

or ignores the conflict and it is characterized by a persons low concern for his

own rights as well for the others rights.

This style has been identified as withdrawal, buck-passing or side-

stepping solutions (Abas, 2010). This also implies, that an individual will either

improve a difficult situation or attempt to appear neutral (Bennagen & Ye,

2016). Additionally Corn (2013) stated that this conflict resolution style deals

conflict without dealing it, it is used when the level of conflict is too high and

the probability of winning is very low.

The disadvantage of this style is that conflict that is not dealt with can

delay long-term goals and avoiding conflicts may cause boiling of emotions

which may result in failing to achieve the organizations goal (Bright, 2012).

Coburn (2013) said that when the value of investing time to resolve the

conflict outweighs the benefit or the issue under negotiation is trivial and

sometimes there is just not enough at stake to risk a difficult conflict situation.

In negotiations, it involves a lot of emotions and it is not good when pushing

through thus, it is better to allow people in the organization to calm down first,

let the anger leaves the organization so that rationality may appear.

Additionally, Coburn (2013) pointed that this conflict resolution style is best

and most sensible to use when a person is dragged into a negotiation

unprepared and avoid it until prepared to face discussions and meetings.

 75

On a lighter note, Caonera (2013) said the brighter side of this conflict

resolution style is that it can maintain the relationship within the organization.

However, it does not resolve the conflict. In fact, avoiding the problem does

not make it go away, but make it worse.

Rendering to the claim of Waithaka (2014) flexibility indicates how

much a party is willing to change positions and move in order to work out the

conflict and it will lead to collaborative style of conflict resolution since this

style demand parties work together to come up with or without solution. When

the balance of power is fairly distributed among the parties involved, conflict

handling styles that are agreed upon will benefit both parties.

According to Maitlo, et.al. (2012) the avoiding style users are quite

unable to devise better and effective solutions or alternatives to their conflict

problem because they dont possess the fundamental knowledge of their own

concerns or the others besides not being much aware of the problem itself.

With such contexts where there are lesser resources to employ ultimately

tend to lesser probability of resolving the conflict, thereby unnecessarily

stretching the problem. Hence people who avoid the problem are expected to

encounter many and usually longer problems.

The danger of this was also discussed by Coburn (2013) saying that

whoever has the greater insistence will usually end up with the short end of

the avoidance switch. Illogically, avoid profile negotiators are frequently

seeking to avoid conflict and their avoidance conflict resolution style instead

lands in more conflict. Thus, when differences are eventually aired, emotions

and arbitrary position are often more difficult and fixed than they need (ibid.).
 76

The avoidance conflict resolution style was found out by Chaudhry et.al

(2011) to make worse the negative effects of both task and relationship

conflicts due to the people involved are not actively seeking to deal with the

conflicts and avoidance will naturally make matters worse since avoiding

strategy neglects the concern of both parties by evading the conflict or

postponing a solution. Moreover Mehrad, et.al (2014) said that avoidance

refers to rejecting any responsibility and leaving situation easily.

Lazarus (2014) showed that avoidance as a conflict resolution style is

insignificantly negative contribution to employees productivity therefore

means that collecting bargaining and negotiation are the conflict management

strategies that can enhance employees productivity while imposing and

avoidance will discourage employees productivity.

Findings of Pourghaz, et.al (2014) shows no significant relationship

between the avoidance style and occupational personality similar to a different

study which concluded that avoidance reduces job satisfaction.

Compromising Style

Bakhare (2010) defined compromise as giving up more than you want,

while others see compromise as both parties winning. There may be times

when compromising is more appropriate than others, especially when the

issues at hand are of moderate importance, the balance of power remains

equal, or when resolving the issue is of utmost priority. The skills attached to
 77

being able to compromise are negotiating, finding a middle ground, assessing

value, and making concessions.

In compromising, an individuals objective is to look for a beneficial and

equally satisfactory for the both parties (Trainer, 2010). This is conceivably

one of the weakest styles because individuals tend to compromise their

position before thinking that they needed it during the process of resolving

issues within the organization (Boyer, 2011). Compromising is a temporary

solution if other resolution styles do not work. However, compromising should

not be an option if goals are at stake and being forceful is necessary.

Moreover, Caonera (2013) said the compromising gives up more than

competing but less than accommodating likewise with addressing an issue

more directly than avoiding, but doesnt explore it in as much depth as

collaborating. Compromising might mean splitting difference, exchanging

concessions, or seeking a quick middle-ground position.

According to Toku (2014) this style is not suitable for handling complex

problem that requires problem solving since this style may not be applicable in

situations where one party is more powerful that the other party. Thus this

style is appropriate where collaborating and competing style cannot be used.

This strategy involves sharing according to Wang (2015) whereby both

parties give up something to make a mutually acceptable decision. Moreover,

Wang (2015) said that it is useful when both of the conflicting parties have the

same level of goal and understanding towards the conflict but this style is not

advisable for complex problem that needs a good problem-solving strategy.

However, Wang (2015) stated also that most of the management practitioners
 78

use this strategy to multifaceted conflicts, and, as a result, it has a big

possibility of failing to fix the issue and create an effective long-term solution.

Compromising is sometimes the easiest method after avoidance in

dealing with conflict Corn (2013) said since this will make you realize that it

requires trust and competition to loss and better give up a little to end the

argument.

Ahamefula (2014) said that compromising involves bargaining and

equally giving up something to reach peace. It may be used as a quick

resolution to the issue and prevention of further arguments, it usually involves

high to moderate emotional levels, high to low conflict resolution skill level,

moderate clarification of goals, moderate relationship status and moderate

prevention to punishments.

In this style, there is no clear winner and loser but rather, it gives a ratio

of acceptance of solution that provides incomplete satisfaction (Robbins,

2015). Moreover, Yasin & Khalid (2015) stated that this conflict resolution style

makes the person who is using this strategy very sacrificial just to solve the

conflict. This middle ground conflict resolution style reflects moderately to

personal concerns for the interests of others.

Bestowing to Waithaka (2014) compromise is another conflict

resolution strategy where either of the parties abandons their initial desires,

interests and needs to produce a common ground that is agreeable to all

those involved. In this style, parties seek to compromise where the conflicting

parties relinquish certain concerns to settle and achieve a resolution that will

please all those involved.

 79

According to Maitlo, et.al. (2012) this conflict resolution style takes

place when there is an equal consideration for ones own concerns and the

concerns of others. Additionally, this style is achieved by better

communication of all the concerns among the persons involved and through

mutual recognition of the concerns. With the present study conducted by

Maitlo, et.al and focused on the conflict management towards opposite-sex,

so the respondents were asked about the relationship of conflict towards co-

worker in opposite-sex and results shows that it has different conflict

resolution style when respondents engage to same-sex or opposite-sex and

give three criteria in measuring the quality of the decision reached, normative

criteria of justice and normative criteria of fairness.

Abas (2010) presented in a study that compromising means weakness

to the competitive persons. Additionally, this conflict resolution style is one of

the least used in the five resolution style (Abas, 2010, Graham, 1998).

Contrary, according to Hayes (2015), this conflict resolution style shows

maturity other than the other, as this style needs individual to give-up

something, and it takes a lot of maturity (Bennagen & Ye, 2016).

Caonera (2013) additionally mentioned that this conflict management

style occurs when each staff must give up something of value to help resolve

the conflict since this situation emerges no winner nor loser each staff yields

something in order to reach an agreement or resolution. To crushed, when

equal strength opponents are at an end and when there is a deadline which is

fast approaching. Caonera (2013) stressed out also that the objective of this

conflict resolution style is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution

which partially satisfies both parties.

 80

As mentioned by Coburn (2013), the best way to use this conflict

resolution style is when you are pushed for time and you are dealing with

someone you trust. Meeting halfway reduces problems in the relationship, bit

usually leaves a good impression on the table. Additionally, Yasin & Khalid

(2015) cited that it is frequently used when the person have to achieve

temporary solutions or have to resolve conflicts quickly and to avoid more

critical issues to be discussed. Thus, when you have nothing left to offer, and

this is the only way to seal the deal (Coburn, 2013).

The advantage of this style is it gives a fair outcome to the persons

involve while on the other side, it will not give satisfaction to both parties in the

negotiation table (Bright, 2012).

Coburn (2013) said that it is not good to use this conflict resolution

style when you use this as an excuse for not preparing properly, if the

outcome of the negotiation is critical, then you should not compromise on

things that you absolutely must have. Coburn (2013) also cited that one of the

problems with using compromising is if a person makes concerns within your

position with no strong rationale, the other party may assume that you are

going to continue to make more concerns and may appeal from the other

party by using a weak rationale. Whichever negotiator starts with the more

ambitious opening position wins the compromise and use calculate early on

who stands to gain if it comes down to compromises. Moreover, Coburn

(2013) said that bigger opening positions results in greater chances of

standstill since compromising as conflict resolution style cheat both sides out

of innovative solutions.
 81

Senior staffs of large company according to Chaudhry, et.,al (2011)

reflects to the limited of compromise resolution strategy to manage the

conflicts and it was found to positively relate to team cohesiveness and firm

performance when used to deal with relationship conflicts since it makes an

attempt to obtain partial satisfaction for both parties, in a way that both are

asked to sacrifice for a common gain. Moreover Mehrad, et.al (2014)

mentioned that contrary to other conflict resolution style, compromising

discusses about bargaining in both manager and staff to obtain organization

dispute resolution.

Pourghaz, et.al (2014) revealed that there is no significant relationship

between the compromise style and occupational personality similar to the

investigations that compromise has no significant relationship with job

satisfaction and found out that managers who used the compromise style had

higher self-awareness.

A research by Reio and Trudel (2013) showed that this kind of conflict

resolution style was preferred by senior-level administrators, followed by

competing, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating style.

THEORETICAL/ CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

When handling conflicts, person and organization should apply

different conflict resolution styles: dominating/competing, collaborating,

integrating/accommodating, avoiding and compromising. These are applied to

handle conflict, but individuals and organizations should have operational

 82

standards which will strategically reduce the tensions resulted from conflict

such as acknowledging conflicts, actively listening, mitigates the conflicts and

analyses issues (Duggan, 2015).

The Thomas-Killman Theory of Conflict Resolution was used to support

the assertions of this study. As discussed, this theory reveals two different

perspectives of personal behaviours which are assertiveness and

cooperativeness (Thomas and Killman, 1947). Thus, the application of this

two will result to: competing, collaborating, accommodating, avoiding and

compromising.
 83

MAIN VARIABLE

Conflict Resolution Styles

1. Avoidance

2. Collaboration

3. Competitiveness

4. Compromise

5. Accommodation

Profile of the Respondents

1. Sex

2. Age

3. Education

4. Status

5. Length of Service

MODERATING VARIABLE

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

 84

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The results of this research study would help the following persons and

clientele:

Legal Staff. This study would enable them to access, and utilize their

conflict resolution style for them to have harmonious relationships towards

handling conflict disputes with their co-workers.

HR Manager. They could gather data for more viewpoints on conflict

resolution style and be able to intervene properly in internal office dispute

resolution.

Lawyers. This study would improve their way of understanding of

conflict resolution styles of their legal staff in the firm and will help them in

negotiating conflicts within the organizations, if needed.

Future Researcher. The result would serve as additional information in

conflict resolution style related studies.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

For clearness of key terms used in this research study, the functioning

definition is provided below:

Conflict Resolution Style. It refers to the ways of facing issues,

concerns and different point of views particularly problems encountered at life

situations and worksites such as law firms.

Staff. It refers to the legal assistant, legal researcher, and paralegal

officers working in a law firm.

Legal Offices. This refers to the selected law firms in Davao City

where this study was conducted.

 85

CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research method and procedures used by

the researcher in this study. It includes the research design, research

respondents, instruments used, collection of data, and statistical treatment

employed in analysing the data. Moreover, this study conducted a survey in

order to achieve goals and to not either to inspire or disappoint the

participants point of view.

Research Design

The research method that was used in this study was descriptive

method. This method can easily determine the latest demographic profile of

staff in legal offices in Davao City. Descriptive research is primarily utilized

when the researcher wants to know a deeper comprehension of a certain

topic; its best used when research is a fact-finding study and when collection

of data through questionnaires, interviews and observations is implicated in

achieving the goal (Manguiob & Bonite, 2014).

Moreover, this research method design acquired data of the current

level of demographic profile of staff in legal offices and the conflict resolution

styles of the respondents. Thus, this gave a representation of possible

changes in their conflict resolution style.

 86

Research Subject

The staffs of legal offices in Davao City were the respondents of this

study, which was defined as any employees under the supervision of the legal

office. The research used convenient purposive sampling where the status

and responses were considered confidential at utmost care. The sample was

divided into different legal offices to determine the sample size of 30

respondents.

Research Instruments

The research instrument used in this study was adapted from Johnson

& Johnson (2010). This questionnaire was showed to the adviser for

validation and other recommendation. Implications for revisions were carefully

noted and integrated. The adviser identified the demographic profile of the

research respondents.

The questionnaire is divided into two parts. Part one (1) is the

demographic profile of the respondents and part two (2) was based on the

indicators from the Thomas and Killman Conflict Resolution Style Model

comprised of 25 adapted questions to measure the five variables, using a five

(5) Liker scale which means:

SCALE RANGE DESCRIPTION INTERPRETATION

VALUE

5 4.50 5.00 Very High This means that the

specific indicator is high

preferable.
 87

4 3.50 4.49 High This means that the

specific indicator is very

highly preferable.

3 2.50 3.49 Moderate This means that the

specific indicator is

moderately preferable.

2 1.50 2.49 Low This means the specific

indicator is low

preferred.

1 1.00 1.49 Very Low This means the specific

indicator is very low

preferred.

Data gathering Procedures

The following are the procedures in conducting the gathering of the

research data.

Seeking Permission to conduct the study. Letter of permission to

conduct the study was given to the Head of Office of the selected Legal

Offices in Davao City.

Administration of questionnaire. After the permission granted, the

questionnaire was explained and administered to the respondents.

Retrieval of the questionnaires. The researcher gathered the

questionnaires and data were tabulated for statistical analysis.

 88

Statistical Treatment of Data

The statistical tools employed in interpreting the data gathered were

the following:

Frequency and Percentage. This was used to determine the

demographic profile of the staff in legal offices in Davao City.

Mean. This was used to know the conflict resolution styles among staff

of legal offices.

T test and F Test. These were used to know the significant

difference on the conflict resolution style among staff of legal offices when

grouped according to their demographic profile.

 89

CHAPTER 3

PRESENTATION ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

The results and findings of this study are presented in this chapter. The

data was culled from the thirty (30) respondent staff and secretaries of the

selected legal offices in Davao City. The researcher used the validated survey

questionnaire as tool in gathering data.

The researcher conducted the survey in selected legal offices last

March 2016 particularly at Lopez-Evangelio Law Office, Jao Law Offices,

Villanueva Zeta Bata & Evangelio Law Offices, Delgra Law Office, Batiller &

Sarmiento Law Offices, Camino Law Office, and Dumlao Consultancy &

Notary, to know the conflict resolution styles among its staff and secretaries.

Thus, this study believes that it will be a great help to law offices

human resource manager, in order for them to know the right arbitration

towards employees conflict that will lead the organization to a harmonious

and unified environment.

Profile of the Respondent

There were 30 respondents in the study. The research was conducted

from January 3, 2016 to March 3, 2016. There were 30 respondents with the

retrieval rate of 100%. The research tried to determine if there is a significant

relationship between levels of conflict resolution style of respondents.

Table 1 presents the frequency percentage distribution of the

respondents sex. Data shows that twelve (12) or 40 percent are male and
 90

eighteen (18) or 60 percent are female. Data says four (4) or 13 percent are

under 20 years old, sixteen (16) or 53 percent are 21-30 years old, six (6) or

20 percent are 31-40 years old, three (3) or 10 percent are 41-50 years old

and one (1) or 3 percent are 51-60 years.

This table also presents the frequency and percentage distribution of

the law offices respondents educational attainment. The table further reveals

that the biggest number is consist of eighteen (18) or 60 percent who are

bachelors degree holder, while high school graduate, graduate studies and,

law school students are equal to four (4) or 13 percent.

Data also reveals that as to civil status, it shows an equal frequency

and percentage distribution of fifteen (15) or 50 percent. In terms of length of

service, thirteen (13) or 43 percent are 1-5 years in service, nine (9) or 30

percent are 5-10 years in service, six (6) or 20 percent are 10-15 years in

service, and two (2) or 7 percent of them are 15 years and above in service.
 91

Table 1

Profile of Respondents

Profile Frequency Percentage Total

Gender Male 12 40% 100%
Female 18 60%
Age Under 20 4 13% 100%
21 30 16 53%
31 40 6 20%
41 50 3 10%
51 60 1 3%
Education High School 4 13% 100%
Bachelor 18 60%
Master 4 13%
Law School 4 13%
Civil Status Single 15 50% 100%
Married 15 50%
Length of Service 1-5 13 43% 100%
5-10 9 30%
10-15 6 20%
15 2 7%
 92

Table 2. Level of Conflict Resolution Styles of the Respondents in Term

of Competitiveness.

In table 2 the respondents were asked on their perception in the area

of competitiveness. Their responses showed that they highly use it with a

mean of 3.75. The respondents said that in the area of arguing their case with

peers, colleagues and co-workers to give value to the position, they take the

respondents said that they highly use it with a mean of 3.80.

In terms of how firm they are in resolving issues when it comes to

defending their side of the issue, the respondents said that they highly use it

with a mean of 3.70. In the area of upholding their solutions to the problem,

respondents said that they highly use it with a mean of 3.63.

In terms of convincing the other person of the logic and benefit of the

position respondents said that they highly use it with a mean of 3.80.

Finally, in terms of ignoring the suggestions of her/his peer, colleagues

and co-workers, respondents replied that they highly use it with a mean of

3.83.

Relatively, Yasin and Khalid (2015) cited a research respondents

answers to conflict, and it was discovered that they use authoritarian and

power based methods in order to manage conflict with students.

Contrary to the study conducted by Bennagen & Ye (2016),

respondents were often use compromising and only occasionally use

competitive as there conflict resolution style.

 93

Table 2

Level of Conflict Resolution Style of the Respondents in Terms of

Competitiveness

Competitiveness Mean Descriptive Scale

1. The staff argued their case with 3.80 High

peers, colleagues and co-workers to

demonstrate the merits of the position I

take.

2. The staff is firm in resolving issues 3.70 High

when it comes to defending my side of

the issue.

3. The staff upholds their solutions to 3.63 High

the problems.

4. The staff convinces the others of the 3.80 High

logic and benefit of my position.

5. The staff like it or not, and will never 3.83 High

rest their case losing.

Overall Mean 3.75 High

 94

Table 3. Level of Conflict Resolution Styles of the Respondents in Term

of Collaboration.

The study sought to determine the level of collaboration among the

respondents. Generally, the respondents said that it is highly used with a

mean of 3.61. Particularly in the area of seeking to investigate issues with

others in order to find solutions that are mutually acceptable, the respondents

said that they highly use it with a mean of 3.73.

In terms of trading important information with others so that problem

can be solved together, the respondents said that they highly use it with a

mean of 3.73. On the other hand, in the area of bringing everyones concerns

out into the open in order to resolve disputes in the best possible way, the

respondents said that they highly use it with a mean of 3.73.

In addition, in the area of trying to overcome with any disgust that might

exist between them, they said that they moderately use it with a mean of 3.47.

Finally, in the area of trying to dig into an issue to find it a solution good for all

of them, the respondents said that they moderately apply it with a mean of

3.37.

Contrary to the study conducted by Hashish (2015) collaborating as a

conflict resolution style showed to be least frequently used by staff to manage

conflict with colleagues or co-workers.

Moorhead and Griffin (2015) stated that parties to conflict may initially

have difficulties working out the ways in which all can achieve their goals.

However, because the relationship is vital to goal achievement, the parties are

willing to work together to achieve a harmonious result.

 95

Ferreres (2014) added that this style reflects a desire to fully satisfy the

desires of both parties and that when this approach is used, the relationship

between the parties improves. It involves analyzing an issue to identify the

underlying concerns of two or more individuals and findings an alternative that

addresses all concerns (Conlon, 2010).

 96

Table 3

Level of Conflict Resolution Style of the Respondents in terms of

Collaboration

Collaboration Mean Descriptive Scale

1. The staff seeks to investigate issues 3.73 High

with others in order to find solutions

that are mutually acceptable.

2. The staff trades important 3.73 High

information with others so that problem

can be solved together.

3. The staff seeks to bring everyones 3.73 High

concerns out into the open in order to

resolve disputes in the best way

possible.

4. The staff firsts try to overcome any 3.47 Moderate

disgust that might exist between us.

5. The staff tries to dig into an issue to 3.37 Moderate

find a solution good for all of us.

Overall Mean 3.61 High

 97

Table 4. Level of Conflict Resolution Styles of the Respondents in Term

of Avoidance.

This study attempted to measure the level of avoidance among the

legal staff. Generally, the respondents said that they moderately use it with an

overall mean of 3.34. The respondents said that in terms of trying to avoid

being singled out and keeping conflict with others to themselves, they highly

use it with a mean of 3.67. In the area of not taking position that will create

controversy, they said that they moderately apply it with a mean of 3.37.

Further, in the area of avoiding hard feelings by keeping their

disagreement with others to themselves, the respondents expressed that they

moderately use it with a mean of 3.27. In addition, when the respondents

were asked in terms of avoiding from topics that are sources of disputes with

co-workers, they said that they moderately apply it with a mean of 3.17.

Lastly, in the area of physically or mentally withdrawing from the

conflict, the respondents said that they moderately apply it with a mean of

3.23.

Contrary to the study conducted by Hashish, et.al (2015), avoidance

was perceived to be the most frequency used conflict resolution style by their

staffs in managing conflict, because it was perceived that experiencing a

conflict would damage their relationship. Staff may fear to argue with their

colleague especially when they are arguing with the senior/older staff that will

cause fear of retribution and fear about their achievements might be affected

by conflict with the senior/older staff.

 98

Table 4

Level of Conflict Resolution Style of the Respondents in terms of

Avoidance

Avoidance Mean Descriptive Scale

1. The staff tries to avoid being singled 3.67 High

out, keeping conflict with others to

themselves.

2. The staff usually dont take position 3.37 Moderate

that will create controversy.

3. The staff avoids hard feelings by 3.27 Moderate

keeping my disagreement with others

to them.

4. The staff avoids from topics that are 3.17 Moderate

sources of disputes with their co-

workers.

5. The staff physically or mentally 3.23 Moderate

withdraw from the conflict

Overall Mean 3.34 Moderate

 99

Table 5. Level of Conflict Resolution Styles of the Respondents in terms

of Accommodation.

The study sought to determine the level of accommodation among the

legal office staff. Particularly in the area of attempting to meet the expectation

of others, the respondents said that they highly do it with a mean of 3.97. In

terms of making disagreements appear less important, the respondents said

that they moderately do it with a mean of 3.40.

On the other hand, in the area of accepting recommendations from

colleagues, peers and co-workers, the respondents said that they highly do it

with a mean of 3.57. In addition, in the area of easing the conflict by

suggesting that differences are trivial and showing goodwill by blending their

ideas into those of other people, they said that they moderately do it with a

mean of 3.37.

Finally, in the area of allowing a better position and showing

reasonableness, the respondents said that they highly do it with a mean of

3.73. Generally the respondents said that they highly do it with an overall

mean of 3.61.

Lather, Jain and Shukla (2010), mentioned a study that revealed

mostly the same result that Malaysians preferred accommodating as their

conflict resolution style while countries like Japan and Australia secondly

preferred accommodating as their conflict resolution style because these

countries have cultures and traditions seemingly alike with the Philippines.
 100

Table 5

Level of Conflict Resolution Style of the Respondents in Terms of

Accommodation

Accommodation Mean Descriptive Scale

1. The staff attempts to meet the 3.97 High

expectation of others.

2. The staff like to smooth over 3.40 Moderate

disagreement by making the appear

less important

3. The staff accepts the 3.57 High

recommendation of colleagues, peers,

co-workers.

4. The staff eases conflict by 3.37 Moderate

suggesting that our differences are

trivial and then show goodwill by

blending my ideas into those of the

other people.

5. The staff when finds wrong, they 3.73 High

allow a better position to be heard, to

learn, and show my reasonableness.

Overall Mean 3.61 High

 101

Table 6. Level of Conflict Resolution Style of the Respondents in terms

of Compromising

This study attempted to measure the level of compromising among the

legal office staff. The respondents said that in terms of compromising through

negotiations they highly do it with a mean of 3.70. In the area of approaching

the person about the conflict at the right time they said that they highly do it

with a mean of 3.57.

Further, in the area of positioning in the middle to break deadlocks the

respondents said that they moderately do it with a mean of 3.43. In addition,

the respondents were asked in terms of meeting halfway with others they said

that they moderately do it with a mean of 3.23.

Lastly, in the area of giving up something with exchanging for

something else the respondents said that they moderately do it with a mean of

3.43. Generally, the respondents said that they highly do it with an overall

mean of 3.47.

Lather, Jain and Shukla (2010) said that in Korea, a study was

conducted and revealed that Korean workers and some government

employees depends on the relative status which concludes a forty-six point

nine percentage saying that compromising style is preferred used as conflict

management since objective is to find some expedient to their culture,

mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. Likewise,

compromising addresses an issue more directly than circumventing the issue,

but it does not explore the issue in as much depth as work together does

(Conlon, 2010).
 102

Table 6

Level of Conflict Resolution Style of the Respondents in terms of

Compromise

Compromise Mean Descriptive Scale

1. The staff tries to reach compromises 3.70 High

through negotiation.

2. The staff when the timing is right 3.57 High

explains how they feel and try to show

them where they are wrong.

3. The staff put forward middles 3.43 Moderate

position in efforts to break deadlocks.

4. The staff gives in to others if they are 3.23 Moderate

willing to meet me halfway.

5. The staff searches for middle ground 3.43 Moderate

or being willing to give up something in

exchange for gaining something else.

Overall Mean 3.47 High

 103

Table 7. Significant Difference on the Level of Conflict Resolution Style

When It Analyzed According to Respondents Sex.

In table 7, the t-test was used to present the significant differences on

level of conflict resolution style when grouped according to their sex. In terms

of competitiveness the p-valued 0.95 and a f-ratio of 0.45 which has no

significant value. For collaboration, results shows that it has a 0.896 p-value

and f-ratio of 0.38 meaning it has no significant relationship. In avoidance,

have a p-value of -0.38 and a f-ratio of 0.71 means that there is no significant

difference. In addition, in terms of accommodation statistics shows a p-value

of -0.63 and f-ratio of 0.532 which still have no significant relationship. Lastly,

in compromising, have a -0.98 and 0.34 p-value and f-ratio, respectively which

mean there were no significant difference exists.

Although significant relationship was not found for a lot of the research

variable, there were intriguing differences found between data. On the

research questions one asked the significant difference between preferred

conflict resolution styles analyzed according to sex.

The significant relationship between conflict resolution styles to sex

was not unexpected. According to Brusko (2010), men can manifest both

male and female physiognomies on the same thing women can also do both.

Thus, with this inaccuracy in personalizing each respondents as to sex

character they possess, the lack of relationship between conflict relationship

and sex can be surprising.

Moreover, most of the previous study came to the same result with

regard to the relationship between gender and conflict resolution style. As

 104

mentioned by Havenga (2011) sex was not a feature in conflict resolution

styles and shows no significant relationship between. Shadare, Chidi &

Oweyemi (2011) conducted study wherein they found no significant difference

in relation to sex and conflict resolution styles. Thus, data shows consistency

with previous studies that there is no relationship between sex and conflict

resolution styles.
 105

Table 7
Significant Differences on the Level of Conflict Resolution Style When
Analyzed According to Respondents Sex.

Indicator Gender Mean f-ratio p-value Decision

Competitive Male 3.82 0.25 1.19 Accept
Female 3.56
Collaborative Male 3.77 0.38 0.90 Accept
Female 3.53
Avoidance Male 3.27 0.71 -0.38 Accept
Female 3.39
Accommodative Male 3.52 0.53 -0.63 Accept
Female 3.67
Compromise Male 3.30 0.34 -0.98 Accept
Female 3.59
 106

Table 8. Significant Differences on the Level of Conflict Resolution Style

When Analyzed According to Respondents Age.

In table 8, presents the significant difference on the following indicators

of conflict resolution style among the staff of legal offices when respondents

grouped according to age. It can be taken to mean that there is no significant

difference on conflict resolution style among staff in legal offices because

under competitiveness as an indicator, it shows an overall mean of 3.66 with a

f-ratio of 0.454. In the area of collaborative, the f-ratio is 0.232 with an overall

mean of 3.61. Further in the area of avoidance, the overall mean is 3.34 with

f-ratio of 0.262. When it comes to accommodation, the overall mean is 3.61

with a f-ratio of 0.153. Finally, in the indicator of compromise the result of f-

ratio is 0.207 with the overall mean of 3.47.

Bennagen and Ye (2016) studies were contrary to the results

presented ages from 51 60 years old uses compromising as their conflict

resolution style. But the above findings are identical with the study of Havenga

(2011) that as the younger bracket of respondents are more able to

concentrate in problem resolution in an organization. Thus, in general both

age and gender have only small relationship or none either when analyzed to

conflict resolution styles.

 107

Table 8
Significant Differences on the Level of Conflict Resolution Style When
Analyzed According to Respondents Age.

Indicator Gender Mean f-ratio p-value Decision

Competitive Under 20 3.70 0.95 0.45 Accept
21-30 3.79
31-40 3.60
41-50 3.07
51-60 3.60
TOTAL 3.66

Collaborate Under 20 3.60 1.50 0.23 Accept

21-30 3.61
31-40 3.67
41-50 3.13
51-60 4.60
TOTAL 3.61

Avoidance Under 20 3.65 1.40 0.26 Accept

21-30 3.30
31-40 3.33
41-50 2.67
51-60 4.80
TOTAL 3.34

Accommodative Under 20 3.90 1.84 0.15 Accept

21-30 3.54
31-40 3.73
41-50 3.00
51-60 4.60
TOTAL 3.61

Compromise Under 20 3.85 1.60 0.21 Accept

21-30 3.51
31-40 3.30
41-50 2.73
51-60 4.60
TOTAL 3.47
 108

Table 9. Significance Difference on the Conflict Resolution Styles among

Staff in Legal Offices When Analyzed According to Respondents

Educational Background

In table number 9 shows that when analyzed in Educational

Background, respondents have rejected the hypothesis that competitiveness

do not have significant relation with a p-value of 0.03 meaning there is a

significant difference. Moreover, collaboration as an indicator has an overall

mean of 3.61 and a p-value of 0.22 which leads to accepting the Ho.

Additionally, avoidance accepted the Ho with an overall mean of 3.34 and a p-

value of 0.89. As to accommodation, they were an overall mean of 3.61 and a

p-value of 0.63 accepting its Ho. Last of all, in compromising, results shows an

overall mean of 3.47 and a p-value of 0.19 accepting the Ho.

The respondents educational background was the third indicator

observed. Among the five (5) conflict resolution styles, only competitiveness

was found to have significantly related as to the level of educational

background.

Voki and Sontor (2010) conducted a study regarding conflict

resolution and also found a significantly relationship only with collaborative.

Furthermore, the lack of a clear relation between educational background and

conflict resolution styles leads the researcher to believe that exploring a

bigger sample might provide a stronger relationship.

 109

Table 9
Significant Differences on the Level of Conflict Resolution Style When
Analyzed According to Respondents Educational Background.

Indicator Background Mean f-ratio p-value Decision

Competitive Highschool 3.50 3.59 0.03 Reject

Bachelor 3.51
Master 3.70
Law School 4.45
TOTAL 3.66
Collaborate Highschool 3.95 1.58 0.22 Accept
Bachelor 3.61
Master 3.67
Law School 3.13
TOTAL 3.61
Avoidance Highschool 3.50 0.203 0.89 Accept
Bachelor 3.34
Master 3.45
Law School 3.05
TOTAL 3.34
Accommodative Highschool 4.00 0.59 0.63 Accept
Bachelor 3.53
Master 3.60
Law School 3.55
TOTAL 3.61
Compromise Highschool 4.00 1.71 0.19 Accept
Bachelor 3.52
Master 2.80
Law School 3.40
TOTAL 3.47
 110

Table 10. Significance Difference on the Conflict Resolution Styles

among Staff in Legal Offices When Analyzed According to Respondents

Civil Status

In table 10, it shows that among the 30 respondents, fifty percent of

them are single and the others are married. The data when analyzed

according to respondents civil status it proves lack significant difference.

Competiveness has a f-ratio of 0.86, collaboration has 0.65, avoidance with

0.90, accommodation has 0.78, and compromise has 0.30 f-ratios.

Competitiveness has a p-value of 0.03 which leads to a conclusion of

rejecting the hypothesis, collaborative with 0.21 p-value accepting the

hypothesis, Avoidance with 0.02 p-value which means rejection to the

hypothesis and accommodation and compromising have 0.08 and 1.13 p-

values, respectively accepts the hypothesis.

Data shows relevance with the result of the study of Voki and Sontor

(2010) that when looking at the differences in conflict resolution styles with

relations to the civil status of the respondents, only competitiveness and

avoidance shows significant relationship. Although other researcher did not

show any significance between civil status and conflict resolution styles, this

study gives argument for accepting the hypothesis.

 111

Table 10
Significant Differences on the Level of Conflict Resolution Style When
Analyzed According to Respondents Civil Status

Indicator Civil Status Mean f-ratio p-value Decision

Competitive Single 3.68 0.86 0.03 Reject

Married 3.64
TOTAL 3.66

Collaborate Single 3.56 0.65 0.21 Accept

Married 3.65
TOTAL 3.61

Avoidance Single 3.32 0.90 0.02 Reject

Married 3.36
TOTAL 3.34

Accommodative Single 3.64 0.78 0.08 Accept

Married 3.57
TOTAL 3.61

Compromise Single 3.63 0.30 1.13 Accept

Bachelor 3.32
TOTAL 3.47
 112

Table 11. Significance Difference on the Conflict Resolution Styles

among Staff in Legal Offices When Analyzed According to Respondents

Length of Service

Table 11 presents the significant difference on the conflict resolution

style among staff in legal offices when respondents are grouped according to

their length of service. This is manifested on their f-ratio 0.27, 0.83, 0.76, 0.14,

and 0.25 based on the indicators, competitiveness, collaboration, avoidance,

accommodation, and compromising, respectively. It was said to be that p

values above 0.05 is not significant. Thus, data shows no significant

difference as to respondents length of service.

In table number 7 shows the significant relationship between the length

of service a respondent had been in the legal office and the level of preferred

conflict resolution styles and it was found out that there was no significant

relationship was found. This means that the hypothesis was accepted and

shows no significant relationship with the said variable.

Conferring to Brusko (2010), this relationship can be similar to the

significance between age and conflict resolution styles that shows no

relationship since age was not a factor in the respondents preferred conflict

resolution styles, there is a relationship to the respondents age and length of

service the respondent had been in the organization because the older the

respondents the longer years in service is rendered in the company.

 113

Table 11
Significant Differences on the Level of Conflict Resolution Style When
Analyzed According to Respondents Length of Service

Indicator Length of Service Mean f-ratio p-value Decision

Competitive 1-5 3.69 1.40 0.27 Accept

5-10 3.82
10-15 3.60
15-Above 2.90
TOTAL 3.66

Collaborate 1-5 3.51 0.30 0.83 Accept

5-10 3.73
10-15 3.60
15 - Above 3.70
TOTAL 3.61

Avoidance 1-5 3.18 0.40 0.76 Accept

5-10 3.60
10-15 3.30
15-Above 3.30
TOTAL 3.34

Accommodative 1-5 3.78 1.97 0.14 Accept

5-10 3.62
10-15 3.10
15-Above 3.90
TOTAL 3.61

Compromise 1-5 3.66 1.44 0.25 Accept

5-10 3.42
10-15 2.97
15-Above 4.00
TOTAL 3.47
 114

CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter tackles three parts: the summary, conclusion, and

recommendation. The study was mainly conducted to find out the conflict

resolution style used by staff and secretaries of legal offices through the

Thomas-Kingman CRS Model (1974). The researcher also aimed to know if

there was a significant difference when grouped according to their sex, age,

educational background, civil status, and length of service. The study of

relationship could be significant for promoting workplace relations and

improving organizations productivity, a better way in examining socio-

emotional differences of staff most especially to the managing human

resource that can greatly contribute on recruitment and selection and training

and development.

Summary of Findings:

Based on the data presented, the following were the findings of the study:

1. The profiles of the respondents, in terms of gender forty percent (40%) are

male and sixty percent (60%) are female. Among the 30 respondents, fifty-

three percent (53%) of them are in the age bracket of 21-30 years old,

twenty percent (20%) of them are of ages 31-40 years old, thirteen percent

(13%) of them are under 20 years old, ten percent (10%) goes to the

bracket of 41-50 years old and the remaining three percent (3%) are 51-60

years old. Also, the respondents status is equally distributed with a fifty
 115

percent (50 %) percentage frequency for both single and married

respondents. Eighteen (18) of the respondents are bachelor degree

holder, and have same number of four (4) respondents on high school

graduate, masters and in studying in law school. As to length of service,

forty percent (40%) of the respondents have 1-5 years in serve, thirty

percent (30%) has 5-10 years in service, twenty percent (20%) have 10-15

years in service and a seven percent (7%) of the respondents have 15

years and above.

2. The level of conflict resolution style among staff and secretaries of legal

offices in Davao City in terms of competitiveness has an overall mean of

3.75 which means very often used. While, in terms of collaboration which

has an overall mean of 3.61, it means very often used. Further, in

avoidance which means an overall mean of 3.34, it denotes sometimes

used. In accommodation, which has an overall mean of 3.61, it connotes

very often used. Lastly, in terms of compromising as an indicator has an

overall mean of 3.47, it implies sometimes used.

3. Significant differences are shown in the level of conflict resolution style of

staff and secretaries when respondents are grouped according to their

educational background and civil status. In terms of educational

background, a 0.027 p-value on the indicator competitiveness. On the

other side, civil status has two variables to reject the hypothesis which was

competitiveness with a p-value of 0.03 and avoidance with a p-value of

0.02. The F-test was also used to examine if there was significant

difference on the level of conflict resolution style when respondents are

 116

grouped according to their gender, age, civil status and length of service.

In the results presented, there were no significant difference exist.

Conclusion

The following conclusions were drawn based on findings:

1. Most of the respondents highly prefer using competitiveness as conflict

resolution style followed by and collaboration. Additionally, they

moderately prefer compromise and avoidance as their conflict resolution

styles. Thus, they tend to use a combination of all five (5) conflict

resolution styles.

2. The demographic profile as to age, sex, civil status, and length of service

do not significantly influence their conflict resolution style as much as the

educational background and the civil status of the staff of legal offices in

Davao City. The two aforesaid styles are significantly related to their

preferred conflict resolution style.

3. Generally, all of the staff and secretaries in general incline to advocate

harmonious relationship in the workplace.

Recommendation

1. It is recommended that the human resource manager (if any) conducts an

assessment of the law offices conflict resolution styles. This will give the

organization more internal promptness in conflict resolution when its staff

educational background gets higher.

2. The staff and secretaries of legal offices need to be aware not only of the

prospected benefits of the use of the given conflict resolution styles for
 117

negotiations based on the working environment. Trainings and seminars

should be conducted to improve a practical resolution style.

3. The findings of the study may be disseminated to the respondents to serve

as an aid and act as a basis for their development of programs created to

enhance the conflict resolution styles of the staff in legal offices.

4. A deeper study is recommended, which can be conducted at any

organization using the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Resolution Style

Instrument as related to emotional management of the workers such as

communicating and evaluating.

5. For the future researchers, they may enhance the data gathered in this

study to have more option in this kind of study in the future. A larger

sample of respondents may disclose new relationships and improve the

relationships found in the research study.